Some aspects of the strategies favor doing it in HS moreso than in college or the pros. For example the stats on the onsides kicks, if you don't recover then you defend near midfield vs. from the 35 or so. In the pros, the kickers are way way better so it's more like the 50 vs. the 20, and the opposition has tons of people with great hands, unlike most HS opponents.

Punters are in general way better in the pros too.

I have been watching a lot of Florida HS football for the past 7 years, since I've had at least a kid in HS all of that time. Kicking and special teams are pretty much rare skills even in highly regarded HS programs. Kicking is pretty hard!

The other point is that these kids have a lot less practice time than pros. So deciding you simply won't practice punts is a mercy. Even more to the point, the opposition may not have that much chance to practice onside kick recovery, and they may not have a kicker who's a great help in practicing it.

Let me explain: Winning football games requires moving the ball on offense. Even factoring in negative plays on sacks, NFL teams have averaged 6.10 yards per pass attempt over the past 10 seasons. In contrast, they've netted 4.17 yards per rush attempt. Teams can't afford to give up almost two yards per attempt based on play selection.

Still not convinced? Consider this: Over those 10 years, there has been almost no correlation between rush yards per attempt and winning. The correlation coefficient is 0.12, meaning yards per rush attempt accounts for 1.4 percent of the variance in winning. Conversely, yards per pass attempt accounts for 41 percent.

Click to expand...

Actually, moving the ball on offense does not win games. Scoring, or moving 10 yards in 3 plays does contribute.

Complete a 20 yard pass, then three incomplete passes and you punt. Run for 16 yards in four plays and you've gained a first and are at second and 6, a very favorable down distance.

There are myriad other reasons a balanced attack helps your offense, enough to paint this article as stupid.

I'm surprised kickers have not worked on moonshot kickoffs that travel 30 yards but stay in the air a good 4 seconds, or long enough for the cover team to get there when the ball lands.......there's no such thing as a fair catch I believe, so it would instantly be the most exciting plays of the game

although kickoffs would probably be removed from the game if this started happening

Complete a 20 yard pass, then three incomplete passes and you punt. Run for 16 yards in four plays and you've gained a first and are at second and 6, a very favorable down distance.

Click to expand...

You're right that mean and variance both matter, and the first paragraph is all about the mean. But in reality, a 4.0 YPC running attack with all play calls being runs will miss a lot of first downs as well.

That said, the threat of one kind of play is a big part of why other kinds of plays are important. You don't want to allow the defense to key only on one of the possibilities.

ok.....so if a kicker makes that kind of kick by kicking it into the ground first?

what is the instance that puts the ball into a free-for-all situation after going 10 yards?

Click to expand...

The free-for-all comes when the ball is kicked into the ground first. Then there are no rights for the receiving team to call fair catch. Some onside kick attempts involve the kicker kicking the top of the ball as hard as he can so it hits the ground then takes that high bounce.

You're right that mean and variance both matter, and the first paragraph is all about the mean. But in reality, a 4.0 YPC running attack with all play calls being runs will miss a lot of first downs as well.

That said, the threat of one kind of play is a big part of why other kinds of plays are important. You don't want to allow the defense to key only on one of the possibilities.

Click to expand...

Of course run only would ineffective. The premise was pass only and there are lots of reasons. This averaging everything in football is a pet peeve of mine, it's not the way the game is played. Obviously, effective running would prevent teams from playing 5-6 defensive backs, keep safeties in and linebackers too. A power running game also tires out pass rushers by running over them.

Just not a well thought out article IMO, and too much of this simplistic use of statistics these days. Peyton Manning always has an effective RB and uses them well, I'm sorry to say. McDaniel's running game use is erratic most of the time IMO.

Of course run only would ineffective. The premise was pass only and there are lots of reasons. This averaging everything in football is a pet peeve of mine, it's not the way the game is played. Obviously, effective running would prevent teams from playing 5-6 defensive backs, keep safeties in and linebackers too. A power running game also tires out pass rushers by running over them.

Just not a well thought out article IMO, and too much of this simplistic use of statistics these days. Peyton Manning always has an effective RB and uses them well, I'm sorry to say. McDaniel's running game use is erratic most of the time IMO.

Click to expand...

There are a number of teams that should be passing ~90% of the time. A "balanced" attack means according to Nash Equlibrium the efficiency output of run plays v. pass plays is equal, not that you run and pass 50% of the time. Right now passing is a much more efficient way of winning football games unless you have a terrible passing offense.

Manning loses EV by the amount of time they spend running the ball. The only reasonable counter argument is that they have so much +EV over most other teams that they can afford to sacrifice some and remain a heavy favorite in order to limit the amount of physical damage he takes. But that's a pretty weak argument imo and certainly not what someone like John Fox is think when he decided to derp de derp "establish the run."

None of what you said is relevant to the fact that if your EPA/P on running plays is <<<<than on passing plays you are running it too much. Period.